TURNING YOUR DAILY NEWS INTO A SNARKY RANT

Kevin Rudd Slams Pentecostal Pastor’s Objection to Marriage Equality!

In what many are regarding the most “Prime Ministerial moment” of the election campaign, Kevin Rudd has delivered a passionate smack down to a religious pastor who challenged Mr Rudd’s position on marriage equality.

The Prime Minister’s three-minute answer to a New Hope Church pastor Matt Prater’s question on homosexuality has ignited voters just when they seemed to be losing interest in the final days of the election campaign.

When asked on ABC’s Q&A on Monday night how he could claim to be a Christian but keep “chopping and changing” his beliefs on gay marriage, Mr Rudd said it was “just wrong” to think people choose their sexuality.

“They are gay if they are born gay,” he said bluntly.

“You don’t decide at some later stage in life to be one thing or the other. It is how people are built and therefore the idea that this is somehow an abnormal condition is just wrong, I don’t get that. I think that is just a completely ill-founded view.”

Mr Rudd said he made a decision a few months ago to change his position on gay marriage after reflecting for “many, many months and years” and concluding in his “informed conscience and Christian conscience” that it was the right thing to do.

He said that, once he accepted that humans don’t choose to be gay, he formed the belief that it was not right to deny certain people the opportunity for legal recognition in their relationship.

At one point, he challenged the pastor to further clarify his view, demanding he say whether he thought homosexuality was “abnormal”.

“I just believe in what the Bible says and I’m just curious for you, Kevin, if you call yourself a Christian, why don’t you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible?”

Mr Rudd responded: “Well, mate, if I was going to have that view, the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition.”

Former president of the Australian Medical Association and outspoken gay advocate Doctor Kerryn Phelps said Mr Rudd’s impassioned response was a “historical moment in Australian politics”.

“That’s a monumental shift . . . supporting marriage equality as a career move,” she tweeted.

Another Twitter user, @schtang, said “that response by Rudd to the pastor has to be the answer of the century in regards to marriage equality”.

Gay and lesbian advocacy group Australian Marriage Equality said Mr Rudd’s “unprecedented response” marked a historic moment in the debate and would resonate with Australians.

“It is unprecedented in Australian history for a Prime Minister to give such a strong defence of equality for gay people, and it was made all the more compelling because it was from a Christian perspective,” national director Rodney Croome said.

“Mr Rudd gave a moral and spiritual urgency to marriage equality that will resonate with many Australians, including many Australians Christians, and which marks a historic moment in the debate.”

Mr Rudd finished his response by referring to the New Testament.

“The human condition and social conditions change,” he said. “What is the fundamental principle of the New Testament? It is one of universal love. If we get obsessed with a particular definition for that through sexuality then I think we’re missing the centrality of what the gospel… is all about. And therefore I go back to my question, if you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition then frankly I cannot agree with you based on any element of the science.”

But I’m calling bullshit on the bona fides of the question and questioner. That was a set up if ever I’ve seen one. A “pastor” who can’t deliver a better answer than “Jesus said so” on the question of homosexuality? Jesus didn’t say so by the way. It’s an Old Testament issue not a New Testament one. And the “christian” position has more to do with the foundation of the family unit than anything Jesus said or did not say.

Now I’m not here to argue the christian or Catholic position on this issue. I don’t agree with it. But if you reckon Big Kev is passionately off the cuff on this issue as apparently demonstrated last night then you’re pretty naive.

Romans:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

Corinthians:
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomites
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy:
We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

” A “pastor” who can’t deliver a better answer than “Jesus said so” on the question of homosexuality?”

Well that’s generally the jesus-freaks brigade’s justification for everything isn’t it? Either Jesus said it, it’s in the “so-called” bible, or god said it (or all three, cos all three are one and the same aren’t they)…

“Jesus didn’t say so by the way. It’s an Old Testament issue not a New Testament one. And the “christian” position has more to do with the foundation of the family unit than anything Jesus said or did not say.”

Really, or is that just “snacty’s interpretation?”

That’s the thing with you dog-botherers, you can’t even agree amongst yourselves little lone convincingly persuade anyone else that your antiquated views are of any sense of relevance to anyone today…

As for “the foundation of the family unit” you can shove that up your arse.

“The church condemns sex outside of marriage in general, which may explain their paranoia about gays getting married.”

Partially, I suppose. But I think it’s undeniable that a lot of religious contempt (not just by christians) towards homosexuality is rooted in their perceived ‘icky factor’. It’s just not PC for them to come out in open society these days & say why it really bothers them…coz they end up sounding like the close minded, fable worshipping bigots that they are. It is somewhat ingrained.

I doubt it is about the ‘icky factor’ – that can cut both ways. Without sexual attraction to men and a healthy sex drive women would probably find sex with men quite icky. And vice-versa. Also anal sex is not the sole preserve of gays. Often it is not even the main mode of expression.

It is more about an inability to understand gender attraction and to be able to appreciate same-sex attraction, coupled with a distaste for people who are identifiably different.

Both before and after his epiphany. But I’ll stand corrected on a technicality. When referring to the New Testament I was referring to the four gospels and what they represented Jesus having said. My recollection is that he had nothing to say on the issue of homosexuality. Moreover, his main go was that people should treat each other as they wished to be treated. In my book that means that if those who are so inclined as to wish to metaphorically chain themselves for life (or however long they can stand each other) to another of the same gender then they probably should be allowed to do so.

That said, as I’ve said before, it’s not the business of the government, the various churches, or even me as an individual, to “allow” it or otherwise. My promise to my wife had nothing to do with Kev, who was PM at the time, God, Buddha, Allah, Confusious, or any other deity, or anyone else other than our close friends and family (notwithstanding that certain forms were signed the details of which I have no recollection).

If your theory is correct, this would mean that the so-called “Pastor” was in on the set-up and happy to have himself look like a complete fuckwit on national television for the sake of making Kevin Rudd look progressive.

I think this is highly unlikely, and therefore conclude that your assumption that it was a “set-up” is without any foundation whatsoever.

‘Atheism, agnosticism, deism, scepticism, freethought, secular humanism or general secularism are increasing in Australia. Post-war Australia has become a highly secularised country. Religion does not play a major role in the lives of much of the population.

‘In the 2006 Australian census, 18.7% of Australians (or 3,706,555 people) described themselves as having “no religion”. This was three percent higher than in the 2001 census and was the largest growth in total number of any religious option in the census with 800,557 people. A further 2.4 million (11.9%) did not state a religion (or inadequately described it). So just over 30% of Australians did not state a religious affiliation in the 2006 census.

‘The 2011 census showed that the percentage of people declaring no religion had risen to 22.3% (4,796,787 people), becoming the second largest category.[6]

‘According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 25% of Australians do not believe in a god or gods.’

And here is proof if you need more that Rudd is nothing but a fucking fake

“………..Fans of The West Wing – and Mr Rudd and many of his staffers past and present are devotees – might recall an episode from 2000 when the show’s US President Josiah “Jed” Bartlett, on the very eve of a tight mid-term election, recited something very similar, with a theatrical flourish.

The scene takes place in the White House, where President Bartlet finds himself in the same room as a radio talk-show host, Dr Jenna Jacobs, who regularly dispenses advice to her listeners.

Voice dripping with disdain, President Bartlet tells Dr Jacobs he likes her show.

And your point IS? Those of us who don’t “practice” already know all that …

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The fact it was a pastor was down to pure chance.

Well that fks, James’ theory and yours actually …

And here is proof if you need more that Rudd is nothing but a fucking fake

LOL!

Abbott couldn’t even remember the script … er, um ar mmm … let alone put it into his own words on national TV with the CONVICTION I saw in Rudd … Abbott BELIEVES in the “abomination” AND slavery … I know who I prefer …

And BTW, Wailly, you are obviously quoting from another source – not your own work! … folk in glass houses?

Sorry, can someone please explain how pointing out what amounts to an abject hypocrisy of the Catholic Church (as well as other christian churches) amounts to a defence of it? And how such a “defence” warrants more rolled eyes than an Amsterdam Cafe?

Some preachers/priests may well be delusional, some may well be misguided, most are well intentioned. But there are others who are simply parasites on the vulnerable. I reckon we might find Mr Prater is one of these.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ But I’m calling bullshit on 🙄 🙄
the bona fides of the question and questioner. 🙄
That was a set up 🙄 🙄
if ever I’ve seen one. A “pastor” who 🙄
can’t deliver a better answer than 🙄 🙄
“Jesus said so” 🙄 🙄 🙄 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
‘
`cheeses said so` has been the stock answer from dog-botherers for centuries

“Some preachers/priests may well be delusional, some may well be misguided, most are well intentioned. But there are others who are simply parasites on the vulnerable. I reckon we might find Mr Prater is one of these.”

Teh gospel according to snacty…

🙄

Why is it, that you always find it necessary to defend certain aspects of so-called “christian spokespeople” but at the same time slander others?

Perhaps you should join “the rest of the modern world” in realising that all god-botherers are full of shit…?

Do you disagree that the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage is at odds with other aspects of its teaching?

Do you disagree that “Saint” Paul was a cunt?

Do you disagree that Jesus Christ, to the extent reported in the four gospels of the New Testament, was silent on the issue of homosexuality?

All we seem to disagree on is the likelihood of “Saint” Kevin delivering on your particular political issue of choice. Well I’ve got news for you, Reb. “Saint” Kevin doesn’t give a flying fuck about gays or their marriage rights.

He won’t deliver on gay marriage any more than he delivered on cheaper groceries, cheaper fuel, climate change mitigation, Aboriginal welfare, border control, fiscal conservatism, social democracy, computers for kids, doctors clinics, fast internet for all, budget surpluses over the fiscal cycle and the mtriad of other grandiose promises the big noter has made.

That’s because the guy is a fraud. And if the ALP and his other supporters haven’t sussed that out by now well more fool them. Thankfully the majority of the population seems to have it worked out.

oh 🙄 snacky, suck it up princess.
.
kevin07 arse-fcuked the dog-botherer last night on qandaland,
that is all there is to it, not your apologistic twaddle which is in your first comment, you are just dragging your dog-nonsense all over the place, to which most of us don`t give a fcuk

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ dick head.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ *shrill*
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ I don’t intend to engage with you 🙄 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
‘
if you bothered to follow `pastor matts` links above,
you would realize you are defending a crank, Dunny also points out the `icky` factor that these type of cranks hold, most often, in things that are not really any of the cranks business.
.
if you were a better man, and better human being, you would not default to defending cranks.
.
Other cranks, the KKK also claim `icky` factor, when blacks marry whites.
Also none of teh-KKK`s business.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ The church condemns sex outside of marriage in general, which may explain their paranoia about gays getting married.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
‘
Tho not overly concerned about sex within the monastery/nunnery between the adults in charge and the kids they molest and, the cover-ups.

‘ 🙄 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ All we seem to disagree on is the likelihood of “Saint” Kevin delivering on your particular political issue of choice. Well I’ve got news for you, Reb. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ The `Blue` Wiggle is much more persistent and much harder to remove from TV screens.

Is religion and bible belief even relevant in public discussions about government in a supposedly secular state? Who cares what they believe? The great insult is that they expect the entire population to live according to the prejudices found in a book of fables from ancient days when they believed in all kinds of superstition and magical stuff and nonsense. The koran, the bible and all religious ‘teachings’ are man made creations to control people.
They also expect the entire population to fund this personal belief in supernatural, magical beings.
Organised religion, the hillsongs, the catholic mafia etc are business organisations. “It’s a market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one” Not a bad one-liner, I feel I’ve heard it before though.

The problem with Rudd is that he has spent the election campaign proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he hasn’t changed, that he is still the same meglomaniacal psychopath that Labor axed in 2010. The consequence of this will be there for all to see on Saturday night.

The way Rudd handled the pastor on Q&A is emblematic of this. Rudd is a PM. There was no need to personally attack the man and doing so made him seem like an arrogant bully. The two Rudds are nicely contrasted in this piece:

At 7.30pm that Monday, more than 35,000 Christians gathered across 339 churches in every state and territory of Australia to watch Rudd and Tony Abbott address the Christian constituency.

Not yet knowing what was to come, many of us sympathised with Rudd’s apparently genuine admission that: “Many in the Christian churches may be disappointed with some of the decisions that I have taken as Prime Minister or as a person. I have also undertaken those decisions in good and prayerful conscience, even though people in equal prayerful conscience may disagree with some of those conclusions.”

If the night had ended there, many of us would have been disappointed but at least sympathetic towards Rudd’s clumsy attempt to navigate through a complex moral minefield. What came next, no one could have foreseen.

Not more than three hours later, Rudd publicly crucified a mainstream Christian pastor for questioning the PM’s backflip on marriage policy.

Instead of the “gentle Kevin meek and mild” we’d seen earlier that night, Rudd now not only failed to directly answer the question but mercilessly lambasted the pastor, whose personal views were irrelevant to his response.

According to Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies, Rudd was “profoundly wrong in his understanding of the Bible. He misquoted the Bible and attributed to the Bible something that Aristotle said (that slavery is a natural condition).”

While Rudd’s gross distortion of biblical truth was deeply concerning, it was his modus operandi and treatment of the Christian church that was offensive.

In retrospect, the Prime Minister’s apparently gracious words of 7.30pm were akin to Judas’s kiss before his 10.30pm betrayal. Voters can forgive a prime minister for changing his or her mind on even an important policy issue. On Monday night, however, Rudd treated every Christian voter in Australia with absolute contempt.

Far from being some moment of great integrity and strong leadership, the Prime Minister’s visceral attack on the Christian church was nothing more than cheap political opportunism.

Rudd may have garnered a few more votes in Grayndler but he has cost the party votes in most seats that are not infested with leftist moonbats.

So much for a kinder, gentler politics.

Rudd has done much, much more than Murdoch to lose this election. I voted a while ago when I had a more optimistic opinion of Rudd. At least now I don’t have to agonise over the rotten choice we are presented with.

While Rudd’s gross distortion of biblical truth was deeply concerning, it was his modus operandi and treatment of the Christian church that was offensive.

Well, as Wally would say … diddums … why would 35,000 Christians get “special audience” from the two (supposedly) most powerful men in the (secular) country …

the Prime Minister’s visceral attack on the Christian church was nothing more than cheap political opportunism.

And the church’ involvement in denying people of same sex orientation their rights isn’t cheap political interfering …

I don’t go near a church I don’t try and make religious people (of any persuasion) deny their faith and join the “dark side” … I don’t GAFF what people “believe” … but politics is about politics not someone’s faith in a book written centuries ago AFTER the events, with bits stolen from every other religion in history …

I APPLAUDED KEVIN RUDD for his stand as I WATCHED it unfold … quite frankly the pastor was a Fuckwit™ and judging by the look in his eyes he’d just had a hit of LSD or was a biblical nutcase …

My point wasn’t about the substantive issue but rather Rudd’s psychopathic arrogance. A PM addressing even the most doltish questioner at a public forum should behave politely. Rudd couldn’t help himself and in his denigration of the pastor his personal arrogance and political stupidity were on display for all to see.

The people of Australia pressured the ALP into reinstating Rudd. The election was his to lose. And lose it he has.

Rudd couldn’t help himself and in his denigration of the pastor his personal arrogance and political stupidity were on display for all to see.

Personal opinion (or more to point personal beliefs or lack of) … I have no time for piddling around with stupid people who stand up on National TV and try to score biblical points at the expense of human rights …

Unfortunately we won’t get to hear Tony Abbott on Q&A … the coward who would be Prime Minister …

People will certainly be voting for the Emperor with No Clothes this time around … and whatever he stuffs up if he takes office he has a simple “… well the, erm, previous, erm, government, arr, left us in a, um, parlour*, erm state …”

I have no time for piddling around with stupid people who stand up on National TV and try to score biblical points at the expense of human rights

Neither do I, but that wasn’t my point.

“And did the Muslim community get a special 7:30 address from Abbott and Rudd?”

I’m pretty sure the major parties would have found a way to pander to them. Keating did and we ended up with that divisive disgusting fuckwit and former Chief Mufti of Australia Sheikh Hilali as a citizen.

While Rudd’s gross distortion of biblical truth was deeply concerning, it was his modus operandi and treatment of the Christian church that was offensive.

Modus operandi? Anything written in the australian is offensive and should be seen for what it is, direct political campaigning and advertising without the LNP logo underneath. The grovelling, cowardly, suckhole employees of a foreign national demanding a desired political outcome for corporate profiteering by their criminal boss.

The christian church [or any church] and their prejudices shouldn’t even be an issue in secular government, tell em to take it up with their dog[s] let them intervene from divine heights if necessary.

…Last night’s Kitchen Cabinet I enjoyed, despite TA. But what about in the kitchen getting the girls to prepare all the food, set the table while T sipped on the wine and chatted. No-one else on Kitchen Cabinet has done that as far as i can remember. I don’t even think he really knew how to barbecue or cook. Neither did Doug Cameron really. But at least he had a go. Too much for Tone to do a salad eh!…

(If anything, the last and next however long has yielded a fascinating insight into ‘values’ and ‘power’ alignments in the contemporary Australian polity; quite revealing, if not revelatory, a lot of it; and quite impossible to edit from the public record and/or folk memory, one supposes.)